"Tour de Bore"

[SilentAssassin]

Tour director Christian Prudhomme said: ‘The one thing I can tell you is that the 2013 Tour will favour the climbers a lot more than this year’s route did. Whatever we decide, there will be more stages with summit finishes.’

Link to article?

If this is true, I can't wait to see Contador and Schleck drop Wiggins on the climb. I do hope to see Andy do another long solo attack on a summit finish. We'll see if Froome and Wiggins are the real deal next tour.

 

[piemonster]

Wiggo is really from Belgium isn't he? And Froome is Kenyan...

In that case can you tell Australia to send Niki Gudex back to the UK, a swap well worth making

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Who needs more MTF´s or less TT´s for exciting racing? As we just witnessed in the olympic road race, it´s possible to win flat "stages" from a break.

So just shut up JV: Throw the RR´s in the dust bin, and make the teams smaller. The fans will honour it. As compromise, keep the power meters so that your riders have something to stare at.

Hope at least Prudhomme learned something from it. Let the DS´es cry. The fans pay the bills!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Who needs more MTF´s or less TT´s for exciting racing? As we just witnessed in the olympic road race, it´s possible to win flat "stages" from a break.

So just shut up JV: Throw the RR´s in the dust bin, and make the teams smaller. The fans will honour it. As compromise, keep the power meters so that your riders have something to stare at.

Hope at least Prudhomme learned something from it. Let the DS´es cry. The fans pay the bills!

Add UCI's point scheme has made it even more of a snooze. But, that's a more complicated problem. I think it was Inrng that described the impact the points scheme was having on racing that did it for me.

Smaller teams is a big problem for the UCI. They can't find that many people who will put up the money for more, smaller teams because the costs of smaller teams is not that much less. They don't like mixing the tiers of athletes too much either. It mostly damages ASO's event brands if they fill the peloton with lower-budget teams.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Add UCI's point scheme has made it even more of a snooze. But, that's a more complicated problem. I think it was Inrng that described the impact the points scheme was having on racing that did it for me.

Smaller teams is a big problem for the UCI. They can't find that many people who will put up the money for more, smaller teams because the costs of smaller teams is not that much less. They don't like mixing the tiers of athletes too much either. It mostly damages ASO's event brands if they fill the peloton with lower-budget teams.

I meant smaller teams per race. As we saw in the olympics. That means it makes it more difficult to catch the break, especially w/o RR´s.

I have no problems with big rosters. That might have been unclear.

 

[McLovin]

Just had a look at some tours in last 25 years, and at least on paper, they are way worse than this one. And still, we call them classic.

1986 – 2 mtf
1989 – 2 mtf
1991 – 2 mtf
1992 – 2 mtf ( from a total of 2 mountain stages?????. No Pyrenees)
1995 – 2 mtf

 

[Eshnar]

Just had a look at some tours in last 25 years, and at least on paper, they are way worse than this one. And still, we call them classic.

1986 – 2 mtf
1989 – 2 mtf
1991 – 2 mtf
1992 – 2 mtf ( from a total of 2 mountain stages?????. No Pyrenees)
1995 – 2 mtf

Wasn't 1992 the year with that Sestriere stage that was just slightly harder than anything we've seen in France in the last 20 years?

 

[roundabout]

1995 had 3 + Mende, I seem to recall.

La Plagne (?), Alpe d'Huez, Guzet-Neige.

Edit: 4 even. I forgot all about Cauterets.

 

[McLovin]

1995 had 3 + Mende, I seem to recall.

La Plagne (?), Alpe d'Huez, Guzet-Neige.

Edit: 4 even. I forgot all about Cauterets.

sorry. wrong source for me.

 

[Escarabajo]

Just had a look at some tours in last 25 years, and at least on paper, they are way worse than this one. And still, we call them classic.

1986 – 2 mtf
1989 – 2 mtf
1991 – 2 mtf
1992 – 2 mtf ( from a total of 2 mountain stages?????. No Pyrenees)
1995 – 2 mtf

1986??

No way Jose:

Stage 13: Superbagneres. MTF.
Stage 17: Serre Chevalier. MTF.
Stage 18: Alpe d'Huez. MTF.
Stage 21: Puy de Dome. MTF.

 

[Magnus]

Wasn't 1992 the year with that Sestriere stage that was just slightly harder than anything we've seen in France in the last 20 years?

In terms of length and accumulated vertical gain, then probably yes.
But I'm sure people would flame it anyway because of the flats between the climbs and because the last two climbs are so easy and thus rendering Iseran and Roselend useless.

 

[McLovin]

1986??

No way Jose:

Stage 13: Superbagneres. MTF.
Stage 17: Serre Chevalier. MTF.
Stage 18: Alpe d'Huez. MTF.
Stage 21: Puy de Dome. MTF.

Serre Chevalier is not a MTF but I think it was Granon. Puy de Dome was marked as hilly by wiki so I was wrong.

 

[Escarabajo]

Serre Chevalier is not a MTF but I think it was Granon. Puy de Dome was marked as hilly by wiki so I was wrong.

Stage 17 was a MTF. I had it on tape and watched it many times. It was a massive stage.

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/

 

[Ferminal]

In terms of length and accumulated vertical gain, then probably yes.
But I'm sure people would flame it anyway because of the flats between the climbs and because the last two climbs are so easy and thus rendering Iseran and Roselend useless.

A stage which suited racing 20 years ago =/= a stage that suits racing today.

 

[airstream]

The 1999 Tour also had a little of differences with this IMO. So it was an ok route that is entitled to be sometimes. The course wasn't the main problem of this Tour edition. And yet, after this year Giro and for example La Toussuire stage it gets harder and harder to draw the line between a route that favours great racing and one that doesn't.

 

[Eshnar]

In terms of length and accumulated vertical gain, then probably yes.
But I'm sure people would flame it anyway because of the flats between the climbs and because the last two climbs are so easy and thus rendering Iseran and Roselend useless.

indeed. Just like the Cuneo-Pinerolo stage which in these days would suck. Cycling has changed sadly.

 

[rghysens]

Tour director Christian Prudhomme said: ‘The one thing I can tell you is that the 2013 Tour will favour the climbers a lot more than this year’s route did. Whatever we decide, there will be more stages with summit finishes.’

We don't need more summit finishes, we need more decent stages. I can live with 2 mtf, as long as there are another 4 difficult high mountain stages (as opposed to 1 this year), and 2 or 3 medium mountain stages with the possibility to create some minor time gaps.

 

[McLovin]

Just had a look at 1979 route. I don't know if we'll ever see something like this, even in the Giro. Gladiators I tell you. Look at first week.

It's like this: 25 racing days plus a single rest day
Prologue - 5 k
stage 1 - mountain stage in Pyrenees
stage 2 - 24 k MTT to Superbagneres
stage 3 - mountain stage in Pyrenees
stage 4 - 87 k TTT
stage 8 - 90 k TTT
stage 11 - 33 k ITT
stage 13 - MTF to Ballon d'Alsace
stage 15 - 54 k MTT to Avoriaz
stage 16 - mountain stage in Alps
stage 17 - MTF to Alpe d'Huez
stage 18 - MTF to Alpe d'Huez again
stage 21 - 49K ITT